of the social element in man; that is its strength a its weakness.

But taken by itself this definition is too wide;. covers too much ground and needs greater precisi Otherwise anything with a well-marked social charac is liable to be called Socialism. This is how confus arose. I have shown how soon the precise and narr meaning was lost in England; in France, where it y never formulated, the confusion was at least as gre 'For some years,' wrote Leroux in 1847, it has been practice to call Socialists all thinkers interested in so reforms, all who criticise and condemn Individuali all who speak, under various terms of social provide and of the solidarity which unites not only the memb of a State but the whole human race.' This is, in eff identical with Lord Melbourne's remark, repeated la by Sir W. Harcourt, 'We are all Socialists now.' But loose an interpretation deprives the term of all defit meaning; it leaves nothing distinctive to lay hold About the same time, Considérant, another lead: French Socialist, though of a different school, descril Socialism as an 'aspiration.' So it is; but what sort aspiration? There are innumerable aspirations; and any one is to be rationally discussed and judged, it m be distinguished from the others.

This vagueness is corrected by the precise Engli definition; and if the two are taken together-the bro philosophical conception and the narrow economic on I think they do help us to understand and to judge t movement. They supplement each other, and, if ke clearly in mind, furnish a guide through the intricac of the subject. The one enables us to distingu Socialism from other movements or influences; fre social reform, which is not concerned with the own ship of property; from Communism, which is concern with the ownership of all property, not merely of capit from State action, which interferes with individ liberty in a thousand ways that have nothing to do w economic conditions; from Christianity, which is essen ally concerned with the conduct of individuals and w spiritual forces, not with the economic system. other definition shows us where Socialism stands regard to civilisation in general, and the fundamen

blem of reconciling the social and individual prines, and so gives us a measure by which to judge its eral forms and detailed applications. In so far as it rects the excesses of Individualism, it is beneficial; in Far as it suppresses individuality, it is pernicious. The first phase of the movement, in which these ideas erged, began in 1824, as I have said, and came to an 1 in the revolutionary year 1848. In England all empts to realise the new order by co-operative efforts 1 failed and the movement had been diverted into artism on the political, and Trade Unionism on the lustrial, side. The former collapsed, the latter conued, but on different lines and towards a different al. In France the Saint-Simonian school went to eces through internal dissension and extravagant delopments of the doctrine, and gave place to the school spired by Fourier, who was actually the earliest in the ld, having published his principal work, the 'Theory the Four Movements,' in 1808, but who started no ovement until some disciples took up his teaching any years later, and made a considerable stir. The ost important of them was Victor Considérant. Fouer's teaching presents one point of much interest. He cognised the element of brains in industry and prosed an ideal organisation formed by the co-operation labour, capital, and talent, which were each to be munerated by a definite proportion of the profit-fourwelfths to capital, five-twelfths to labour, and threewelfths to talent. This anticipates one of the most cent actual developments of industrial organisation. he ferment in France produced other types. Proudhon troduced the doctrine of Anarchism, and Louis Blanc at of State Collectivism, which suffered shipwreck in e tragic fiasco of the National Workshops, established realise the Right to Work.'

So ended the first phase of Socialism. It was followed a long period of abeyance, occupied by social reforms, fore the second phase began. Unlike the first, which as French and English, the second was German and articularly German-Jewish. It was dominated by arx. Those who hold that Socialism is the invention Ia secret Jewish syndicate have failed to observe at in the first phase, when all the basic ideas were

propounded, there were no Jews among the leaders. the other hand, it is true that when they did take 1 lead and the movement was transferred to Germany changed its character and became destructive. In earlier period it was benevolent and hopeful, it look to peaceful methods and mainly to voluntary co-ope tion for its realisation. In the second it assume gloomy aspect; instead of peaceful methods it promi violence, instead of co-operation it postulated the cl war, instead of hope it offered a catastrophe, brou about by the inevitable march of events and the inher laws of social change.

But all this has to do with the means. The end the same as that formulated in 1827-the substitut of publicly owned for privately own capital. It emer again in the second epoch, nearly fifty years after 1827 Prof. Schäffle's 'Quintessence of Socialism,' published 1874. This was the first clear exposition of the aim Marxian Socialism, and Prof. Schäffle says it took h years to familiarise himself with the main idea out of the confusion surrounding it. His definition of essential aim of Socialism runs thus:

'To replace the system of private capital by a system collective capital, that is, by a method of production, wh would introduce a unified (social or "collective") organisat of national labour on the basis of collective or comp ownership of the means of production by all members society.'

It is a little more verbose than the statement of 18 but adds nothing to it, and even says less, for the ear writer brings in the labour theory of value and the i that capital is accumulated past labour-two concepti commonly attributed to Marx, who was nine years in 1827.

The aim is still the same to-day, but to public own ship has been added democratic control. And there other modifications. I think myself that the Marx era is over, and we are passing into a third phase.

A. SHADWEL

rt. 2.—BORROW'S 'CELTIC BARDS, CHIEFS AND

KINGS.'

he Works of George Borrow. Norwich Edition. Edited by Clement Shorter. Vol. XIV. Constable, 1924.

MONG the works which George Borrow in his lifetime nounced as ready for publication was 'Celtic Bards, aiefs and Kings.' Of this little has hitherto been known, ad in its complete form it has only recently been entified. Its various chapters, extending to several undred pages, had been separated and scattered. ortunately it has been possible to reassemble them rom the collections of Mr T. J. Wise and Mr Clement horter, and to present them to the public in the Norwich dition. The twelfth and thirteenth volumes contain Wild Wales,' and the fourteenth brings to light a large mount of new matter concerning Wales. It includes a umber of cancelled passages from Wild Wales,' and a umorous account of Borrow's dispute in a dream with n old Welsh bard, Rhys Goch, which beyond all doubt riginally formed the forty-eighth chapter of that work. hen comes a well-known tale from the 'Mabinogion,' The Dream of Maxen Wledig,' which affords no clue to lorrow's intentions regarding its destination. Following pon this story we have an entertaining picture of the nediæval South Welsh chieftain, Griffith ap Nicholas, vho rightly should figure in the last section, to which, n the Norwich Edition, the title of The Welsh Bards as been given. This, as we shall proceed to show, is none ther than the missing 'Celtic Bards, Chiefs and Kings.' In January 1861, George Borrow contributed to the Quarterly Review' an article on 'The Welsh and their iterature,' in the course of which he touched upon the oet that he admired from his youth until his old age, Dafydd ap Gwilym. Speaking of the bard's burial-place, he famous monastery of Strata Florida in Cardiganhire, he says in a footnote: 'Of this celebrated place we re permitted to extract the following account from Mr Borrow's unpublished work, "Celtic Bards, Chiefs and ings." We will not reproduce the extract here, for he reader will find it as the opening of the ninety-first hapter of Wild Wales.' Obviously it cannot have been

9

'Wild Wales' to which Borrow referred in the footno for it is altogether different in character from what t title of the unpublished work would imply. Howev the same passage occurs in 'The Welsh Bards' of t Norwich Edition, and here we certainly have a wor the contents of which correspond exactly to the title the missing book. A careful comparison of The Wel Bards'-to which from now onwards we shall allude 'Celtic Bards, Chiefs and Kings'-with the article in t 'Quarterly Review' yields some valuable results. In t first place, one observes that the latter is largely co posed of extracts from the former. This may perha throw light on Dr Knapp's statement that in prepari his contribution to the Quarterly Review,' Borrow 'I vamped an old article he had written in 1830, entitl "The Welsh and their Literature," which, so far as t present writer is able to judge, is entirely misleadin Still more important, however, is the explanation fou for the abrupt beginning of 'Celtic Bards, Chiefs a Kings,' as it is printed in the Norwich Edition. The it opens with the words: 'We now proceed to give son account of the poetic literature of the Welsh.' Clear this suggests that something has gone before, but spite of long searching no other manuscript fragme with the missing portion could be discovered. On tur ing to the article in the Quarterly Review,' howeve we find the solution of the problem. The same wor (with the insignificant substitution of 'Cymry' f 'Welsh') occur there, not at the beginning, but son little way on. It seems, therefore, reasonable to suppo that the opening passage of the article is the missi introduction to 'Celtic Bards, Chiefs and Kings.' The is just a possibility that when Borrow wrote the artic he detached the first few pages from the other work f this purpose and afterwards omitted to restore the In any case, with the addition of this introduction a the account of Griffith ap Nicholas, Celtic Bards, Chie and Kings' may confidently be regarded as complete.

The date of its composition is a matter of intere It is manifest that if our assumption is correct, the wo must have been written before the publication of t article in January 1861. Support for this view is four in its relation to Wild Wales,' which, it may be